Opinion

Santiago, Manuel v. Wayne Johnson dba Omega Home Improvements

  • 2016 TN WC 184
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Filed
Aug 9, 2016
Status
Published
On the bench
Pamela B. Johnson
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

FILED

August 9, 2016

TN COURT OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS

Tin1e 7:36AM

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

IN THE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

AT KNOXVILLE

MANUEL SANTIAGO, ) Docket No.: 2015-03-0698

Petitioner, )

v. ) State File No.: 86396-2015

WAYNE JOHNSON doing business as )

OMEGA HOME IMPROVEMENTS, ) Judge Pamela B. Johnson

Respondent. )

EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER

DENYING MEDICAL AND TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITS

This case came before the undersigned Workers' Compensation Judge on August

2, 2016, upon the Request for Expedited Hearing filed by the Petitioner, Manuel

Santiago, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239 (2015). The present

focus of this case is whether an employee-employer relationship existed between Mr.

Santiago and the Respondent, Wayne Johnson, doing business as Omega Home

Improvements. The central legal issue is whether Mr. Santiago can demonstrate a

likelihood of success at a trial on the merits on this issue. If so, this Court must then

decide whether he sustained an injury arising primarily out of and in the course and scope

of his employment, entitling him to past and future medical benefits and past and future

temporary disability benefits. For the reasons set forth below, the Court holds Mr.

Santiago failed to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed at a hearing on the merits in

proving that he was an employee of Mr. Johnson and Omega Home Improvements, and

therefore, the remaining issues need not be addressed at this time. 1

History of Claim

During the Expedited Hearing, the parties established the following facts. Mr.

Santiago is forty- five years of age and lives at the Salvation Army in Knoxville,

Tennessee. He works in construction as a laborer. Mr. Johnson operates Omega Home

Improvements and performs home improvement and roofing jobs.

1

A complete listing of the technical record and exhibits admitted at the Expedited Hearing is attached to this Order

as an appendix.

On October 20, 2014, while installing a metal roof on a house in Gatlinburg,

Tennessee, Mr. Santiago cut his left hand while handling a sheet of metal roofing. (Ex.

1.) He was taken to Physician Regional Medical Center in Knoxville, Tennessee where

he received six sutures. (Ex. 3.) The attending physician assigned Mr. Santiago

restrictions of no lifting with or use of left hand for ten days. !d. Mr. Santiago returned

to Physicians Regional on October 30, for removal of his sutures. !d. He testified he was

subsequently unable to work for three months because of his injury. !d. He incurred

medical bills in the amount of $900 and paid $20 out-of-pocket for a prescription. !d.

A dispute exists as to whether Mr. Santiago was working for Mr. Johnson and

Omega Home Improvements on October 20, 2014, when he suffered the laceration to his

left hand. Mr. Santiago testified, with the assistance of an interpreter, that Mr. Johnson

picked him up from the Salvation Army on October 20, in a white pickup truck and drove

him to the house in Gatlinburg. He indicated Mr. Johnson paid for his breakfast and

lunch and prayed with him before he began work. He testified that he worked with a

"blonde guy," who gave Mr. Santiago a business card with Mr. Johnson's name and

telephone number; he was unable to produce the business card or recall the name of the

"blonde guy." Mr. Santiago testified Mr. Johnson paid him $100 cash for the five hours

he worked that day. He stated Mr. Johnson was present at the time of the injury, and

drove him to Physicians Regional Medical Center, where he dropped him at the entrance

to the hospital.

In contrast, Mr. Johnson testified he did not know Mr. Santiago and denied that

Mr. Santiago ever worked for him. He indicated he does not work on metal roofing and

has never purchased metal roofing from his regular suppliers. He stated he did not work

in Sevier County on October 20, and further denied that he ever picked up workers from

the mission. He denied that he employed anyone since 2013; he stated since 2013, he

works for himself with no employees. He admitted he drives a white pickup truck with

his company's name and telephone number on the side of the truck, which he suggested

Mr. Santiago has likely seen around town. He further admitted that he has prayed with

workers at job sites, but indicated Mr. Santiago is confusing him with another person for

whom he worked and sustained the injury.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

The Court now turns to the legal principles it must apply to grant or deny Mr.

Santiago the benefits he requests. Mr. Santiago need not prove every element of his

claim by a preponderance of the evidence in o~der to recover temporary disability and/or

medical benefits at an Expedited Hearing. McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing,

No. 2014-06-0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Tenn. Workers'

Comp. App. Bd. Mar. 27, 2015). Instead, he must come forward with sufficient evidence

from which this Court might determine he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits.

2

Id.; Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-239(d)(l) (2015).

This lesser evidentiary standard does not relieve Mr. Santiago of the burden of

producing evidence of an injury by accident that arose primarily out of and in the course

and scope of employment at an Expedited Hearing, but "allows some relief to be granted

if that evidence does not rise to the level of a 'preponderance of the evidence."'

Buchanan v. Car/ex Glass Co., No. 2015-01-0012, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.

LEXIS 39, at *6 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Sept. 29, 2015). In analyzing whether

he met his burden, the Court will not remedially or liberally construe the law in his favor,

but instead shall construe the law fairly, impartially, and in accordance with basic

principles of statutory construction favoring neither Mr. Santiago nor Mr. Johnson. See

Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-6-116 (2015).

In the present case, this Court must first address whether an employee-employer

relationship existed between Mr. Santiago and Mr. Johnson, doing business as Omega

Home Improvements. The Workers' Compensation Law defines an "employee" as

"every person... in the service of an employer... under any contract of hire or

apprenticeship, written or implied." See Duck v. Cox Oil Co., No. 2015-07-0089, 2016

TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 2, at *13-14 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Jan. 21,

2016); Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(A) (2015) (emphasis added). "If no

employment relationship existed, then it strains logic and common sense to conclude that

the employment contributed more than fifty percent in causing the injury." Id. The

Workers' Compensation Law further defines the phrase "arises primarily out of and in

the course and scope of employment" to mean that the injury is compensable "only if it

has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment contributed

more than fifty percent (50%) in causing the injury, considering all causes." Id.; Tenn.

Code Ann.§ 50-6-102(14 )(B) (2015) (emphasis added).

Here, Mr. Santiago could not recall the address in Gatlinburg where he worked

and sustained the laceration to his left hand. Mr. Santiago said he was paid in cash; thus,

he could not produce a pays tub to identify his "employer" on the day of the injury. He

additionally was unable to produce the business card he received from his coworker, the

"blonde guy." He further could not provide the name of his coworker with whom he

worked at the time of the incident and who likely could have confirmed the identity of his

"employer." Therefore, as a matter of law, this Court holds Mr. Santiago failed to come

forward with sufficient evidence from which this Court might conclude that he is likely to

prevail at a -hearing on the merits. Accordingly, his request for past and future medical

treatment and past and future temporary disability benefits is denied at this time.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Manuel Santiago's claim against Wayne Johnson doing business as Omega Home

Improvements is denied at this time.

3

2. This matter is set for an Initial (Scheduling) Hearing on October 18, 2016, at 3:00

p.m. Eastern Time. The parties must call (865) 594-0091 or toll free at (855) 543-

5041 to participate in the Initial Hearing. Failure to appear by telephone may

result in a determination of the issues without your further participation.

ENTERED this the 9th day of August, 2016.

HON. PAMELA B. JOHNSON

Workers' Compensation Judge

Right t Appeal:

Tennessee Law allows any party who disagrees with this Expedited Hearing Order

to appeal the decision to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. To file a Notice of

Appeal, you must:

1. Complete the enclosed form entitled: "Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal."

2. File the completed form with the Court Clerk within seven business days of the

date the Workers' Compensation Judge entered the Expedited Hearing Order.

3. Serve a copy of the Expedited Hearing Notice of Appeal upon the opposing party.

4. The appealing party is responsible for payment of a filing fee in the amount of

$75.00. Within ten calendar days after the filing of a notice of appeal, payment

must be received by check, money order, or credit card payment. Payments can be

made in person at any Bureau office or by United States mail, hand-delivery, or

other delivery service. In the alternative, the appealing party may file an Affidavit

of Indigency, on a form prescribed by the Bureau, seeking a waiver of the filing

fee. The Affidavit of Indigency may be filed contemporaneously with the Notice

of Appeal or must be filed within ten calendar days thereafter. The Appeals Board

will consider the Affidavit of Indigency and issue an Order granting or denying

the request fo'r a waiver of the filing fee as soon thereafter as is

practicable. Failure to timely pay the filing fee or file the Affidavit of Indigency

in accordance with this section shall result in dismissal of the appeal.

5. The parties, having the responsibility of ensuring a complete record on appeal,

may request, from the Court Clerk, the audio recording of the hearing for the

purpose of having a transcript prepared by a licensed court reporter and filing it

4

with the Court Clerk within ten calendar days of the filing of the Expedited

Hearing Notice of Appeal. Alternatively, the parties may file a joint statement of

the evidence within ten calendar days of the filing of the Expedited Hearing

Notice of Appeal. The statement of the evidence must convey a complete and

accurate account of what transpired in the Court of Workers' Compensation

Claims and must be approved by the workers' compensation judge before the

record is submitted to the Clerk of the Appeals Board.

6. If the appellant elects to file a position statement in support of the interlocutory

appeal, the appellant shall file such position statement with the Court Clerk within

five business days of the expiration of the time to file a transcript or statement of

the evidence, specifying the issues presented for review and including any

argument in support thereof. A party opposing the appeal shall file a response, if

any, with the Court Clerk within five business days ofthe filing of the appellant's

position statement. All position statements pertaining to an appeal of an

interlocutory order should include: ( 1) a statement summarizing the facts of the

case from the evidence admitted during the expedited hearing; (2) a statement

summarizing the disposition of the case as a result of the expedited hearing; (3) a

statement of the issue(s) presented for review; and (4) an argument, citing

appropriate statutes, case law, or other authority.

5

APPENDIX

Technical Record:

• Petition for Benefit Determination, filed October 16, 2015;

• Dispute Certification Notice, filed November 24, 2015;

• Show Cause Order, issued February 11, 2016;

• Amended Show Cause Order, issued March 29, 2016;

• Order, issued April13, 2016; and

• Request for Expedited Hearing, filed May 5, 2016.

The Court did not consider attachments to Technical Record filings unless

admitted into evidence during the Expedited Hearing. The Court considered factual

statements in these filings or any attachments to them as allegations unless established by

the evidence.

Exhibits:

• EXHIBIT 1: Declaration of Manuel Santiago;

• EXHIBIT 2: Sworn Statement of Wayne Johnson; and

• EXHIBIT 3: (Collective) Notice of Filing Medical Record and Table of

Contents and Medical Records of Physicians Regional Medical Center.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Expedited Hearing Order was

sent to the following recipients by the following methods of service on this the 9th day of

August, 2016.

Name Certified Via Via Service sent to:

Mail Fax Email

Garry Ferraris, Esq., X gfeuaris@ferraris law.c_Qm

Employee's Counsel

Wayne Johnson X 7505 Joyful Lane

Self-Represented Knoxville, TN 37918

Employer

Y SHRUM, Court Clerk

C.CourtCierk@tn.gov

6

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.